Abstract
This article offers a comprehensive study of the merits of the legal practice of punishing accomplished crimes more severely than attempted crimes all other things being equal (differential punishment)vis-à-vis the alternative of punishing them with equal sanctions (equal punishment).Unlike the overwhelming majority of the literature on the issue--which focuses on which practice better mirrors the offenders' relative moral deserts--the article evaluates both practices from a consequentialist, deterrence-based point of view. In particular, it shows first that traditional economic theories of the criminal law should yield the conclusion that differential punishment is not superior to equal punishment.The few arguments that the economic literature offers against such conclusion, the article shows, are mistaken. Secondly, drawing on social and psychological findings, the article advances three new arguments showing that, under some likely social and psychological conditions, differential punishment is in fact a superior alternative to equal punishment.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
